Sanchez v. Social Security Administration
ORDER by Chief Magistrate Judge Karen B. Molzen granting 32 Plaintiff's Motion for Section 406(b) Attorney Fees. (KBM)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
CIV 14-0779 LAM
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner
of the Social Security Administration,1
ORDER GRANTING § 406(b) ATTORNEY FEES
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for an award of
$14,956.50 in attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1). Doc. 32. Defendant has
notified the Court that it has no objection to the petition in this case. Doc. 34. Being fully
advised in the premises, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s Motion is well-taken and should
When a court renders a judgment favorable to a Social Security claimant who
was represented before the court by an attorney, the court may allow “a reasonable fee
for such representation, not in excess of 25 percent of the total of the past-due benefits
to which the claimant is entitled.” 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1)(A). Unlike EAJA fees, which are
paid in addition to past-due benefits, § 406(b) fees are paid out of past-due benefits.
Wrenn ex rel. Wrenn v. Astrue, 525 F.3d 931, 933-34 (10th Cir. 2008). If fees are
awarded under both EAJA and § 406(b), the attorney must refund the lesser award to
the claimant. Id. at 934. The court may award fees under § 406(b) when “the court
Nancy A. Berryhill is now the Acting Commissioner of Social Security. Pursuant to Rule 25(d)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Nancy A. Berryhill is therefore substituted for Acting
Commissioner Carolyn W. Colvin as the defendant in this suit.
remands . . . a case for further proceedings and the Commissioner ultimately
determines that the claimant is entitled to an award of past-due benefits.” McGraw v.
Barnhart, 450 F.3d 493-96 (10th Cir. 2006).
Although § 406(b) does not prohibit contingency fee agreements, it renders them
unenforceable to the extent that they provide for fees exceeding 25% of the past-due
benefits. Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 798, 807 (2002). Section 406(b) also requires
the court to act as “an independent check” to ensure that fees are reasonable even if
they are less than 25% of the past-due benefits because there is no presumption that
25% is reasonable. Id. at 807 n. 17. Counsel has the burden of demonstrating the
reasonableness of the fees. Id. at 807. The reasonableness determination is “based on
the character of the representation and the results the representative achieved.” Id. at
808. Factors relevant to the reasonableness of the fee request include: (1) whether the
attorney’s representation was substandard; (2) whether the attorney was responsible for
any delay in resolution of the case; and (3) whether the contingency fee is
disproportionately large in comparison to the amount of time spent on the case. Id. A
court may require the claimant’s attorney to submit a record of the hours spent
representing the claimant and a statement of the lawyer’s normal billing rate for noncontingency fee cases. Id. The statute does not specify a deadline for requesting fees.
See 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). The Tenth Circuit, however, has held that a request “should be
filed within a reasonable time of the Commissioner’s decision awarding benefits.”
McGraw, 450 F.3d at 505.
In this case, the Court has given due consideration to the above factors and finds
that Plaintiff has met his burden in demonstrating that the requested award is both
appropriate and reasonable.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for attorney fees under § 406(b)
is granted. The Court hereby authorizes $14,956.50 in attorney fees for legal services
rendered in United States District Court, to be paid by the Social Security
Administration. Plaintiff’s counsel must refund to Plaintiff the EAJA fee previously
awarded by this Court in the amount of $6,966.62, or, if applicable, only such portion of
the EAJA fee not subject to offset under the Treasury Offset Program (31 U.S.C.
§ 3716(c)(3)(B) (2006)).
UNITED STATES CHIEF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?